How would the LNER's fleet have developed had BR never come to pass

[Nova]

I've often seen this sort of scenario mentioned in passing, but never fully developed, which is a crying shame in my opinion as speculative history can be such a fascinating topic.

call it an ambitious plan, but my layout is going to be based in this sort of scenario, though I would rather not rush straight into it without first thinking through how rolling stock would have evolved over the years. so how do you think locos, coaches and wagons would have developed in a post war climate with no British railways?

to kick off this, allow me to provide my thoughts on the matter:

my idea regarding this is that to start off with to help rebuild the stricken railway system the proposed 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 locomotives designed in 1946 would have been approved to provide much needed heavy frieght and passenger locomotives. In my opinion these would most likely have been one of the last new classes of steam locomotives, as it was clear with the electrification of the woodhead route that they would most likely be pushing towards electrification. though more of the O4s would probably have been rebuilt to O1s (originally there were plans for 160 conversions).

on the subject of Diesel locomotives, maybe they would be comprised of Napier-engined English Electric-built locomotives, with the class 23 and 55 being the same as they were in the historical version of events, with a possible Co-CoDE resembling a class 37 with a Napier engine to fill in the roll of a type 3 locomotive for mixed traffic duties. DMU's would probably look similar to their electric stock for the sake of uniformity, Shunters would most likely by similar to the class 08

in terms of electric stock, multiple units like the Tyneside EMUs would most definately be built in larger numbers to provide local services. Maybe the EE1 and EF/EB1s would be pressed into service starting on the Woodhead line. maybe in line with the EE1 hey might have experimented with a modern version built by English electric as well as a 4-8-4 frieght version, in line with electric locomotive design in mainland Europe at the time. I think by the 80s the existing units would begin to look rather tired and outdated, so in line with an enevitable switch over to AC, the boffins at Doncaster began to design a new series of locomotives and multiple units.

Coaching stock would probably be Thompson stock, though maybe painted a uniform wood-like brown rather than going to the trouble of trying to imitate teak, with a possible switch to pre-war tourist stock style green and cream once situations improved. They might start to build articulated coaching in larger numbers as well.

Freight stock would eventually be built built similar to traditional stylings, but of metal construction with longer chassis' for greater capacity and stability, picture 15 ton standard open wagons and vans built on a similar chassis to the 21t hoppers. During the 70s and 80s they would then begin to be replaced by bogie wagons for increased stability.

that's about all I can come up with, feel free to put forth your own ideas

[manna]

G'day Gents

We have had a bit of a discussion on this subject, but a good few years ago now. Peppercorn A1's may well have been streamlined, but I still think dieselization may have started earlier (IE around 1951). The LNER wasn't a rich railway, so cost savings were a must.

But a more interesting question is, what may have happened, without the intrusion of WW2........more streamliners, bigger engines, ???

manna

[billbedford]

The 1947 dieselisation plan called for the scrapping of the A3s and the importation on US built locos -- so only about 50 years ahead of it's time.

[jwealleans]

How quickly would that have happened, though, given restrictions on supply of oil and the abundance of coal? I'd like to think they'd have been farsighted enough to go directly to electrification, but whether they'd have been able to raise the capital to carry that out is questionable. Unless an alternative to Nationalisation involved a financial settlement which adequately - or even partially - recompensed the railways for wartime damage, by enemy action or simple overuse and lack of maintenance.

[JASd17]

They might start to build articulated coaching in larger numbers as well.

I very much doubt articulated stock would have been on the drawing board. None was built to the new post-war designs, as far as I can recall.

John

[65447]

There were existing electrification schemes in the Manchester and Newcastle areas. Work on the London Liverpool Street-Shenfield electrification had already started prior to WW2 but was suspended because of it, the work not being completed until 1949. The Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrification scheme was similarly delayed. Those in combination suggest the likely direction of development - electrified suburban services in the main conurbations - the GN potentially to follow the GE line and that had already been planned for decades, not executed simply through financial constraints - and specific heavy freight routes also electrified. The LNER had long examined the opportunities presented by electrification but never had the capital nor receipts to finance it; plus the LNER never had the density of suburban passenger traffic of the SR or the income from freight operations of the LMS and GW.

Diesel shunters of the type later to become TOPS class 08 were also in limited use.

The LNER had already invited tenders for the supply of main-line diesel locomotives for the ECML but were prevented from placing an order for them due to impending Nationalisation. That is the most curious event in that all three other grouped companies were able/allowed to continue with their purchase/construction of diesel (electric, mechanical or hydraulic) and gas turbine main-line motive power - LMS 10000-1 in 1947-8, Fell 10100 and NB 10800 in 1950, SR 10201-3 in 1950-1 and GW gas turbine 18000 in 1950 and 18100 in 1952. Admittedly some of those were ordered several years earlier but I have long wondered why the other companies were allowed to continue when the LNER was prevented from doing so.

Most of the LNER Board's post-war investment programme was in track, layout and signalling improvements, much of which was necessary to return the permanent way to pre-war prime condition.

In the end it was the LNER's GE Section that was first to be fully dieselised and later substantially electrified.

[drmditch]

As mentioned above, there have been discussions of this previously on this forum. For example:-
....diesel railcars
...what if nationalisation hadn't happened...

Assuming that the immediate financial situation could have been stabilised (which is a whole question in itself), then here is what (I think) might have resulted.

- Mainline diesels (limited number owing to cost) - see discussions above, but perhaps EE Deltics for high speed services.
- Diesel Mechanical railcars for branch and/or secondary main lines.
- Diesel Shunters for some applications.

- High Speed A1s (more roller bearing examples)
- Heavy duty 4-8-4s and/or 4-8-2s - perhaps with mechanical stoking.
- More A2s (the Peppercorn variant - perhaps with developments)
- More B1s
- More K1s
- K6 (perhaps with tender cab) for lower RA lines

Electrification where bulk traffic would support it.

Obviously, A4s, A3s and V2s would have continued in service, perhaps with quite a large number of re-build and new-build 01s
Older heavier types (O2s and O4s and Q6s) would have continued as long as economically sensible, supported by a greater purchase of O7s (ex WD)

A lot of the older classes were worn out and needed to be scrapped, but since the LNER was a historically minded organisation, the York museum would have been expanded to keep more examples.

Far greater concentration on maintaining fast freight services.
Improvement (preferably back to pre-war standards) of high speed passenger services.
Encouragement of 'excursion' traffic.

Establishment as a 'transport' company. not just a 'railway' company. This would have probably needed favourable legislation.
Creation/modernisation of freight and passenger hubs with integrated road transport.

Perhaps this is where my railway may get to eventually, now I must get back to laying storage sidings (aka Darlington)!

[65447]

I have to disagree with the long-term continuation of steam as motive power, simply because elsewhere the internal combustion engine or, in some cities and towns, trams and trolleybuses showed superiority in almost every way.

Most important was the declining interest of the potential manpower market; not that many would opt for the working conditions and environment of a typical steam locomotive footplate, shed or works; society was already changing and offered more remunerative and attractive alternatives with shorter working hours, better working conditions and the opportunity to take advantage of an increasing amount of leisure time and activities. Steam operation was manpower intensive and well down the productivity scale. An electric or diesel locomotive did not have to been fired up hours before nor require the extensive and time-consuming 'shutdown' activities after use. Coal was bulky, dirty and of variable quality, had to be shipped in long trains to depots and mechanically handled in quantity or manually shovelled at smaller locations. Oil fuel requires considerably less volume to deliver the same operating distance (or can travel many times further for the equivalent volume) and comes out of a pump directly into the tank, while electricity clearly is generated by various means elsewhere, but both can be started and stopped in moments. No need for a fireman (which leads into a discussion about the influence unions had) but can be operated by one man in multiple and, most importantly, delivered a substantial reduction in actual numbers of operating units to provide the same level of service (or a substantial increase in service from the equivalent number of operating units).

Another disadvantage for Britain was that, although it had suffered bombing under the blitz etc. it had not seen the wholesale destruction of railway infrastructure that had occurred on the Continent. It was the latter that provided our nearest European neighbours the opportunity to renew rather than just repair.

However sticking with steam did overcome the supply problems of petroleum-based products during the Suez crisis and at various times afterwards.

[Hatfield Shed]

...Establishment as a 'transport' company. not just a 'railway' company...

With no nationalisation of the railways, then their air operations which were the major component businesses of what became BEA, enter the picture. The LNER might have offered a real 'Flying Scotsman' service using Vickers Viscounts perhaps?

[Nova]

thank you all for your replies, they and any additional linked threads have certainly provided a good read when I arrived home.

they are certainly thought provoking and have given me a few Ideas for my planned layout in terms of rolling stock. The comment of American imports has got me imagining (and possibly planning a model of) a downsized EMD F-unit or E-unit in LNER apple green, or possibly garter blue, they were technically streamliners after all.

the idea of a Pep' A1 in streamlined cladding is certainly tempting, I recall stumbling across the below impression of a streamlined Thompson pacific and it is a much more handsome beast than the unstreamlined version in my humble opinion


in terms of the wholesale withdrawal of steam, I'm going to play it safe and have them withdrawn around the same time as with BR, though I may push it further like with some European countries. Of course the older classes would probably be withdrawn in the 50s, but the LNER built locos, particularly Thompson and Peppercorn designs, would most definitely last until the end as it would make more financial sense to let them operate until their economic lifespan was up (rather than building new locos and scraping them 8 years later like a certain other company)

the comments on the LNER's finances are also interesting, from reading it definitely seems that Nationalisation was the only realistic outcome after the war. Though this is going to be done in model form, so we don't have to worry about the financial situation of the railway we're running.

real life finances are another matter entirely...


moving on slightly, how do you think new classes would have been numbered? especially the 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 locomotives, I'm assuming that the 4-8-2 would be a passenger locomotive whilst the 4-8-4 would be a heavy mixed traffic/heavy frieght engine.

additionally, how would diesel and electric locomotives be numbered? perhaps the introduction of a prefix system (IE Dxxxx for Diesel and Exxxx for electric) for modern traction, with steam retaining the 1946 Thompson numbering scheme? I doubt that the 6XXX range applied to existing electric locomotives would have been able to contain every new modern locomotive.

The LNER might have offered a real 'Flying Scotsman' service using Vickers Viscounts perhaps?

someone needs to come up with an aircraft livery, maybe a small fleet of concords in Garter blue and cream ala the Coronation/West Riding Ltd.

seriously, though, perhaps prop-driven aircraft would use a variation of the tourist livery and (in later years) jets or Turboprops would use the streamliner livery of blue and cream. maybe aircraft built to carry mail would be painted in a teak-brown colour.

I may create a small fleet of aircraft from kits as a little side project, can anyone point me in the right direction for civilian aircraft kits? maybe an Airfix DC3 as a start?

[billbedford]

The LNER had already invited tenders for the supply of main-line diesel locomotives for the ECML but were prevented from placing an order for them due to impending Nationalisation. That is the most curious event in that all three other grouped companies were able/allowed to continue with their purchase/construction of diesel (electric, mechanical or hydraulic) and gas turbine main-line motive power - LMS 10000-1 in 1947-8, Fell 10100 and NB 10800 in 1950, SR 10201-3 in 1950-1 and GW gas turbine 18000 in 1950 and 18100 in 1952.

The difference was that the LNER wanted to buy off-the-shelf locos from the US, and not develop home-grown designs.

[65447]

The LNER had already invited tenders for the supply of main-line diesel locomotives for the ECML but were prevented from placing an order for them due to impending Nationalisation. That is the most curious event in that all three other grouped companies were able/allowed to continue with their purchase/construction of diesel (electric, mechanical or hydraulic) and gas turbine main-line motive power - LMS 10000-1 in 1947-8, Fell 10100 and NB 10800 in 1950, SR 10201-3 in 1950-1 and GW gas turbine 18000 in 1950 and 18100 in 1952.

The difference was that the LNER wanted to buy off-the-shelf locos from the US, and not develop home-grown designs.

Perhaps they were wiser than many then, given the eventual evolution of diesel traction on BR Of course the GW's first gas turbine came from Brown-Boveri in Switzerland and their subsequent 'Warship' and 'Western' diesel hydraulics were based on German designs and used German engines, but that's OK of course.

[65447]

I recall stumbling across the below impression of a streamlined Thompson pacific and it is a much more handsome beast than the unstreamlined version in my humble opinion

Now that is seriously lacking in aesthetics, to put it politely.

[Nova]

The difference was that the LNER wanted to buy off-the-shelf locos from the US, and not develop home-grown designs.

there is one big problem with that


American built locomotives are HUGE, meaning they will encounter problems with the first bridge or tunnel they encounter as Foster Yeoman found out



though admittedly the idea of an F unit on passenger duties with an Alco like a RS-3 on mixed traffic duties does sound tempting

as some additional food for thought, here's an RS-3 built for Mexico, maybe an imported loco would somewhat resemble this

[S.A.C. Martin]

I recall stumbling across the below impression of a streamlined Thompson pacific and it is a much more handsome beast than the unstreamlined version in my humble opinion

Now that is seriously lacking in aesthetics, to put it politely.

Semi-streamlined, surely?

Only the A1/1 Great Northern was intended to be streamlined and the LNER board vetoed that on cost grounds (and possibly in terms of taste - Britain was in the throes of austerity of after all). It looms likely that Thompson would have utilised the full bugatti nose for its smoke lifting capabilities - and Peppercorn had similar mock ups of his A2 and A1s made as wooden models.